Leadership is a big, vague, amorphous topic. We can write about great leaders at great length. But practically speaking, how do you become one?

    A good start is to focus on leadership styles. Daniel Goleman, who popularized the notion of 'emotional intelligence,' has described the following six different styles that leaders use to motivate others.

    Our view is these are not mutually exclusive. You don't need to adopt one and ignore the others. Rather, the best leaders move among these styles, using the one that meets the needs of the moment. Think of them all as part of your management repertoire.

    Visionary. This style is most appropriate when an organization needs a new direction. Its goal is to move people towards a new set of shared dreams. 'Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going, but not how it will get there - setting people free to innovate, experiment, take calculated risks,' writes Goleman.

    Coaching. This one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization. Coaching works best with employees who show initiative and want more professional development. But it can backfire if it's perceived as 'micromanaging' an employee, and undermines his or her self-confidence.

    Affiliative. This style emphasizes the importance of team work, and creates harmony in a group by connecting people to each other. It's particular valuable when you need to improve team harmony, increase morale, and repair communication or repair broken trust in an organization.' But it has its drawbacks. An excessive emphasis on group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected, and lead employees to believe that mediocrity will be tolerated.

    Democratic. This style draws on people's knowledge and skills, and creates a group commitment to the resulting goals. It works best when the direction the organization should take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the collective wisdom of the group. The consensus building approach can be disastrous in times of crisis, however, when urgent events demand quick decisions.

    Pacesetting. In this style, the leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone. But Goleman warns this style should be used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and make people feel as if they are failing. 'Our data shows that, more often than not, pacesetting poisons the climate,' he writes.

    Commanding. This is the classic model of 'military' style leadership - probably the most often used, but the least often effective. Because it rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism, it can undercut morale and job satisfaction. Still, in crisis situations, when an urgent turnaround is needed, it can be an effective approach.

    Note that what distinguishes each leadership style above is not the personal characteristics of the leader, but rather the nature and needs of those who are being led. As James MacGregor Burns argued in his path-breaking 1978 book, Leadership: 'Leadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological and other resources so as to arouse, engage and satisfy the motives of followers.'

    Unlike 'naked power wielding,' he writes, 'leadership is thus inseparable from followers' needs and goals.'

    The good leader, in other words, must understand what motivates those he or she wishes to lead.

    "領(lǐng)導力"是一個宏大、模糊而虛無的話題，我們可以為優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導者寫出連篇累牘的傳記。但講點實在的，你自己怎樣才能成為一名優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導者呢？

    首先最好是關(guān)注領(lǐng)導方式。推廣了"情商"概念的戈爾曼（Daniel Goleman）,曾把領(lǐng)導者用以激勵他人的方式歸為后面說到的六類。

    本文作者Alan Murray所撰寫的管理學書籍。我們的觀點是，這些方式并非相互排斥。你不需要采用一種而忽略其他。相反，最優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導者不會總是選擇某一種方式，而是哪種方式能滿足當下的需要，就采用哪種方式。你要把這些方式當成自己整個管理藝術(shù)的一部分。

    愿景式（Visionary）.當一個組織需要有新的方向時，這種方式最為合適。它的目的是鼓動人們朝著一系列新的共同愿景而前進。戈爾曼寫道，愿景式領(lǐng)導者為團隊指明前進目標，而不是到達目標的方式，這讓人們能夠充分地創(chuàng)新、歷煉、承擔可能的風險。

    輔導式（Coaching）.這種一對一的方式側(cè)重的是人員的培養(yǎng)，教他們學會怎樣提升績效，并幫助他們把個人目標與組織目標結(jié)合起來。在顯示出主動性、希望在專業(yè)上進一步提升的員工身上，輔導發(fā)揮的作用最大。但如果被視為一種婆婆媽媽的管理方式，可能會適得其反，并損傷員工的自信心。

    親和式（Affiliative）.這種方式強調(diào)團隊協(xié)作的重要性，并在人與人之間建立一種紐帶，形成一個和諧的團體。當你需要在組織中增進和諧、提高士氣并修復溝通或受損的信任關(guān)系時，這種方式尤其有用。但它也有缺點。過分倚重對團隊的表揚，可能會放任低劣的績效得不到改正，并讓員工相信他們是可以碌碌無為的。

    民主式（Democratic）.這種方式充分發(fā)揮團隊的知識和技能，共同形成目標，并樹立一種實現(xiàn)目標的共同意志。當組織的前進方向不明確、領(lǐng)導者需要利用團隊的集體智慧時，這種方式最為有效。但在危機時刻，緊急事件需要有迅速決策，這種建立共識的方式可能帶來災難性的后果。

    標桿式（Pacesetting）.根據(jù)這種方式，領(lǐng)導者制定出很高的績效標準，對更好、更快有著一種執(zhí)著的追求，并要求人人都像自己一樣。但戈爾曼警告說，這種方式應當少用，因為它可能打擊士氣、讓人產(chǎn)生挫敗感。他寫道，我們的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，標桿式領(lǐng)導行為多半會損害氛圍。

    命令式（Commanding）.這是"軍事化"領(lǐng)導方式的典型，或許是用得最多、但奏效機會最少的方式。由于很少涉及表揚，并不斷地采取批評方法，它有可能打壓士氣和工作滿意度。但在危機情形下需要緊急扭轉(zhuǎn)局勢時，這可能是一種有效的辦法。

    要注意到，區(qū)分上述不同領(lǐng)導方式的，不是領(lǐng)導者個人的性格特點，而是受領(lǐng)導者的稟性和需求。正如伯恩斯（James MacGregor Burns）在1978年的開創(chuàng)性著作《領(lǐng)導論》（Leadership）中所言：當擁有特定動機或意圖的人們調(diào)動制度、政治、心理或其他方面的資源，并與其他人產(chǎn)生競爭或沖突時，便有領(lǐng)導人類的行為進行，目的是激發(fā)、調(diào)動并滿足追隨者的動機。

    他寫道，領(lǐng)導力與"赤裸裸地行使權(quán)力"不同，領(lǐng)導行為與追隨者的需求和目標密不可分。

    換句話說，好的領(lǐng)導者必須懂得，哪些東西能夠激勵他/她希望帶領(lǐng)的那些人。